Renewable energy politics from the perspectives sustainability: Economy, ecology and energy

Abstract

Many new concepts have been constructed by associating many familiar concepts such as tourism, energy, agriculture and development to the term of sustainability. Some of them are; sustainable development, sustainable agriculture and sustainable tourism etc. Undoubtedly, sustainability is mentioned in many areas such as media, politics, economics and academia. This concept is tried to be gained through the information and practices provided about sustainability to the individuals who make up the society. It is known that sustainability in science education is not evaluated with a holistic approach from the perspective of economy, ecology and energy. If it is assumed that individuals have not theoretical background and culture about sustainability, there can be thought that they will have problem for sustainable lifestyle. Therefore, it can be said that theoretical and practical studies which will help individuals are important in order to a more livable World. The purpose of this study is to construct broad a conceptual framework upon renewable energy policies from the sustainability perspective by linking the terms of economy, ecology and energy known in the literature as 3E. In the method of this research, firstly sustainability is examined from a holistic approach and was developed a model. Then starting from sustainability, socio-scientific issues, production, wastes, ecology, sociology, feminism, cultures, developmental differences, energy production, energy storage and transportation, the renewable ones, photosynthesis, biomass and pyrolysis are connected and interrelated in holistic manner by considering chemistry and politics. In the result of the research, it is arisen that conservative and elder women who is the ability to be happy while consuming less which must be followed and obeyed. By this way, new insights can be obtained and deduced for better inhabitable world peacefully.

Keywords

• Science Education,Sustainability,Energy,Environment,Wastes,Economy

References

1. Ateş, H. & Gül, K.S. (2018). Investigating of pre-service science teachers’ beliefs on education for sustainable development and sustainable behaviors. International Electronic Journal of Environmental Education, 8(2), 105-122.
2. Erciş, A., & Türk, B. (2018). In the frame of ethics consumption, consumer and the environment: the moderator role of ecoliteracy. Journal of Cukurova University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 20(2), 1-24.
3. Prabawani, B., Hanika, I.M., Pradhanawati, A., & Budiatmo, A. (2017). Primary schools eco-friendly education in the frame of education for sustainable development. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 12(4), 607-616.
4. Bjerke, T. & Kaltenborn, B.P. (1999). The relationship of ecocentric and anthropocentric motives to attitudes toward large carnivores. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 415-421.
5. Hoffman, A. J., & Sandelands, L. E. (2005). Getting Right with Nature. Organization & Environment, 18(2), 141–162. doi:10.1177/1086026605276197.
6. Mebratu, D. (1998). Sustainability and sustainable development: historical and conceptual review. Environmental impact assessment review, 18(6), 493-520.
7. Gupta, J., & Vegelin, C. (2016). Sustainable development goals and inclusive development. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 16, 433–448. DOI 10.1007/s10784-016-9323-z
8. Arya, D., & Maul, A. (2016). The building of knowledge, language, and decision-making about climate change science: A cross-national program for secondary students. International Journal of Science Education, 38(6), 885–904.

9. Kurniawan, R. & Managi, S. (2017). Sustainable development and performance measurement: Global productivity decomposition. Sustainable Development, 654, 639–654. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1684
10. Glasson, G. E., Mhango, N., Phiri, A., & Lanier, M. (2009). Sustainability science education in Africa: Negotiating indigenous ways of living with nature in the third space. International Journal of Science Education, 32(1), 125–141.
11. Feinsteın N. W., & Kirchgasler, K. L. (2014). Sustainability in science education? How the next generation science standards approach sustainability, and why it matters. Science Education, 99(1), 121–144. doi:10.1002/sce.21137
12. Miller, T. R. (2013). Constructing sustainability science: Emerging perspectives and research trajectories. Sustainability Science, 8(2), 279–293.
13. Sakschewski, M., Eggert, S., Schneider, S., & Bögeholz, S. (2014). Students’ socioscientific reasoning and decision-making on energy-related issues-development of a measurement instrument, International Journal of Science Education, 36:14, 2291-2313, DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2014.920550.
14. Leiserowitz, Anthony A., Kates, Robert W., & Parris, Thomas M. (2006). Sustainability values, attitudes, and behaviors: A review of multinational and global trends. Annual Review of Environment and Resources. Annual Reviews, Palo Alto, Ca, USA.
15. Van Kerkhoff, L. & Lebel, L. (2006). Linking knowledge and action for sustainable development Annual Review of Environment and Resources. Annual Reviews, Palo Alto, Ca, USA.
16. Şeker, F., & Aydınlı, B. (2016). The didactic of sustainable development terms in science education. European Journal of Social Sciences Education and Research. 6(2), 123-132.
17. Tytler, R. (2012). Socio-Scientific Issues, Sustainability and Science Education. Research in Science Education, 42(1), 155–163. doi:10.1007/s11165-011-9262-1
18. Jesus, M. D., Foti, R., Rinaldo, A., & Rodriguez-Iturbe, I. (2012). Maximum entropy production, carbon assimilation, and the spatial organization of vegetation in river basins. PNAS, 109(51), 20837–20841.
19. Juretic´, D., & Županovic´, P., (2003). Photosynthetic models with maximum entropy production in irreversible charge transfer steps. Computational Biology and Chemistry, 27, 541–553.
20. Johannesson, I., Noradahl, K., Oskarsdottir, G., Palsdottir, A., & Petursdottir, B. (2011). Curriculum analysis and education for sustainable development in Iceland. Environmental Education Research, 17(3), 375-391.
21. Fyfe, WS. (2002). Toward sustainable cities: priorities in economics, ecology and education. Advances In Architecture Series, 14, Segovia, Spain.
22. Blinc, R., Zidansek, A., & Slaus, I. (2007). Sustainable development and global security. Energy, 32, 883–890.
23. Calık, M. & Eames, C. (2012). The significance of a national context: A comparison of environmental education in Turkey and New Zealand. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 21(3), 423-433.
24. Ministry of National Education (MoNE) (2018). [Elementary school science curriculum (Grades for 3-8)]. Retrieved from http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/Dosyalar/201812312311937-FEN%20B%C4%B0L%C4%B0MLER%C4%B0%20%C3%96%C4%9ERET%C4%B0M%20PROGRAMI2018.pdf
25. Benvenisti, E. (2008). Asian traditions and contemporary international law on the management of natural resources. Chinese Journal of International Law, 7(2), 273-283.
26. Luke, T. W. (2008). The politics of true convenience or inconvenient truth: struggles over how to sustain capitalism, democracy, and ecology in the 21st century. Environment and Planning, Oxford, ENGLAND.
27. Miller, T.R., Wiek, A., Sarewitz, D. et al. (2014). The future of sustainability science: a solutions-oriented research agenda. Sustainability Science, 9, 239-246.
28. Lourenco, F., Jones, O., & Jayawarna, D. (2013). Promoting sustainable development: The role of entrepreneurship education. International Small Business Journal, 31, 8, (841-865).
29. Buğra, A. (2007). Poverty and citizenship: An overview of the social-policy environment in republican Turkey. International Journal of Middle East Studies, 39(1), 33-52.
30. Dobson, A. (2003). Citizenship and the environment. Oxford University Press.
31. Colucci-Gray, L., Perazzone, A., Dodman, M., & Camino, E. (2012). Science education for sustainability, epistemological reflections and educational practices: from natural sciences to trans-disciplinarity. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 8(1), 127–183. doi:10.1007/s11422-012-9405-3.
32. İşeri, E. & Özen, C. (2012). Sustainability and Turkey’s nuclear energy policy. İ.Ü. Siyasal Istanbul University Journal of Political Sciences, 47, 161-180.
33. Aydın, F. & Çalışkan, S. (2020). Evaluation of biodiesel produced from tea seed oil in terms of fatty acid components. International Journal of Energy Applications and Technologies, 7(1), 13-19.
34. De Wit, M., Londo, M., & Faaij, A. (2011). Productivity developments in European agriculture: Relations to and opportunities for biomass production. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Review, 15, 2397–2412.
35. Ekpenia L, E. N., Benyounisa K.Y., Nkem-Ekpenib F, Stokesa, J., & Olabic, A.G. (2014) Energy diversity through renewable energy source (RES) – A case study of biomass. Energy Procedia, 61, 1740–1747.
36. Dincer, I. (2000). Renewable energy and sustainable development a crucial review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 4, 157-175.
37. OECD. (2010). Public attitudes to nuclear power, nuclear energy agency organization for economic co-operation and development. https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2010/nea6859-publicattitudes.pdf. (accessed 07.06.2015).
38. Kum, H. (2009). Renewable energy sources: recent developments and policies in world markets., Journal of Erciyes University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 33, 207-223.
39. Kim, M. (2013). Risk communication about nuclear power in Korea: one-year descriptive analysis on twitter. Science Education International, 24 (3), 324-343.
40. URL 1. http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/nuclear.html. (accessed 15.06.2015).
41. URL 2. http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/np-risk.htm. (accessed 18.06.2015).
42. Kim, S.W. (2015) Prediction of product distribution in fine biomass pyrolysis in fluidized beds based on proximate analysis. Bioresource Technology, 175, 275–283.
43. Topçu, E., & Aydınlı, B. (2016). The Determination of Cognitive Structure of Candidate Teachers About Energy Centrals. International Electronic Journal of Environmental Education, 6(2).
44. Yilmaz, A., & Bayrakçeken, S. (2015). Determining of the prospective teachers’ understadings of electrochemistry. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 2831-2838.
45. Coşkun, M. & Akbaş, V. (2017). From black sea coastal to inland: Climatic parameters of kastamonu surroundings. The Journal of Social Science, 4(11), 46-86.
46. Goncaloğlu, B.İ., Ertürk, F., & Ekdal, A. (2000). Comparison of thermal power plants and nuclear power plants in terms of environmental impact assessment. Journal pf Ecology Environment. 9(34) 9-14.
47. Ertürk, F., Akkoyunlu A., & Varınca, K.B. (2006). Energy production and environmental effects fossil hydraulic renewable nuclear. TASAM Strategic Report. No: 14.
48. Ürker, O. & Çobanoğlu, N. (2012). In Turkey, the status of the hydroelectric power plants and be evaluated in the context of environmental policy. Journal of Ankara University Institute of Social Sciences, 3(2), 65-88.
49. Altın, V. (2004). Nuclear energy to new horizons. Science and Technique. TÜBİTAK.
50. Stoutenborough, J.W., Sturgess S.G. & Vedlitz, A. (2013). Knowledge, Risk, and Policy Support: Public Perceptions of Nuclear Power. Energy Policy, 62, 176–184.
51. Lee, C., Hu, S., & Chang, W. P. (1999). A study on risk perception toward nuclear power operation in Taiwan. Institute of Public Health, and Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Yang-Ming University, Taiwan.
52. Aydın, F., Coskun, M., Kaya, H., & Erdönmez, İ. (2011). Gifted students’ attitudes towards environment: a case study from Turkey. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 6(7), 1876-1883.
53. Lee, L. & Yang, H. (2013). Technology teachers’ attitudes toward nuclear energy and their implications for technology education. Online Submission, http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED545402.pdf. (accessed 06.05.2015).
54. De Groot, J.M., Steg, L., & Poortinga, W. (2013). Values, perceived risks and benefits and acceptability of nuclear energy; Risk Analysis, 33(2), 307- 317.
55. Kenar, İ. (2013), Nuclear energy reality in Turkey and the attitude of the science teachers towards the issue. Kamla-Raj. Anthropologist, 16 (1-2), 153-165.
56. Arikawa, H., Cao, Y., & Matsumoto, S. (2014). Attitudes toward nuclear power and energy-saving behavior among Japanese households. Energy Research & Social Science, 2, 12-20.
57. Haşıloğlu, M. A. (2014). The examining of prospective teachers’ views about renewable and non-renewable energy sources: a case study of Turkey. Academic Journals. 9 (13) 411-416.
58. Charısıou N.D. & Goula M.A. (2014). Attitudes of Greek university students towards energy and the environment. Global Nest Journal, 16(5), 856- 865.
59. Karaci, A., Caglar, A., Aydinli, B., & Pekol, S. (2016). The pyrolysis process verification of hydrogen rich gas (H–rG) production by artificial neural network (ANN). International journal of hydrogen energy, 41(8), 4570-4578.
60. Aydinli, B., Avan, Ç., Pekol, S., & Caglar, A. (2016). The ecological awareness imparted by civil foundation for sustainable environment. 10th International symposium on agriculture and the environment, (AgroEnviron 2016), May 23-27, 2016.
61. Caglar, A. & Aydinli, B. (2009). Isothermal co-pyrolysis of hazelnut shell and ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene: The effect of temperature and composition on the amount of pyrolysis products. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis, 86(2), 304-309.